Red Mosquito

Birds in Hell wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:If he somehow wins re-election it will probably be a lot more than 8. i can't imagine he would ever willingly step down.

I always thought presidential term limits were pretty weird anyway.

whats weird is you have term limits on the president, but the SCOTUS are for life (once appointed until they die) and yet congress and the senate have no term limits

This is fun--acting as if it was the administrators of the University out there being hooligans last night:

Simple Torture wrote:This is fun--acting as if it was the administrators of the University out there being hooligans last night:

One possible silver lining to Gorsuch being a Scalia clone is that he'd continue the current pro-free speech alliance between the left and right on the Supreme Court. I was worried Trump would appoint someone way out of whack with that.

I'm mostly fine with Gorsuch getting confirmed, barring the whole blocking of Obama's nominee thing.

tragabigzanda wrote:I'm mostly fine with Gorsuch getting confirmed, barring the whole blocking of Obama's nominee thing.

While the final outcome isn't great, Republicans did the correct thing for their benefit. They were either going to win big or go home there, and they won big.

Birds in Hell wrote:

Can we find a way for Trump to get stuck in Japan and have to complete many embarrassing game show obstacle courses in order to get out? That would be some poetic justice for the reality TV star.

Green Habit wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:I'm mostly fine with Gorsuch getting confirmed, barring the whole blocking of Obama's nominee thing.

While the final outcome isn't great, Republicans did the correct thing for their benefit. They were either going to win big or go home there, and they won big.

I think they're banking on getting another before it's over.

The anti-Trump crowd is at a fever pitch, people are screaming outside Chuck Schumer's house for action, and it's the perfect time for the Republicans to undercut that with a reasonable pick. If Dems accept him, it continues the "cowardly left" story among their own base. If they pick a fight over him, it makes Trump look like the reasonable, bipartisan one for once.

Basically, I think it's a slow game of "replace Scalia with a Scalia, let the damage be to the 'up against a wall' democrats, and save the big guns for the appointment we suspect is coming."

McParadigm wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:I'm mostly fine with Gorsuch getting confirmed, barring the whole blocking of Obama's nominee thing.

While the final outcome isn't great, Republicans did the correct thing for their benefit. They were either going to win big or go home there, and they won big.

I think they're banking on getting another before it's over.

The anti-Trump crowd is at a fever pitch, people are screaming outside Chuck Schumer's house for action, and it's the perfect time for the Republicans to undercut that with a reasonable pick. If Dems accept him, it continues the "cowardly left" story among their own base. If they pick a fight over him, it makes Trump look like the reasonable, bipartisan one for once.

Basically, I think it's a slow game of "replace Scalia with a Scalia, let the damage be to the 'up against a wall' democrats, and save the big guns for the appointment we suspect is coming."

Yea, I see the same thing. Whatevs. Good luck Supreme Courting when the country is a heap of rubble.

White House, for the last 6 hours: No, really, the whole Mexico threat was a joke. It's fine. We're all fine here, now. How are you?

Trump, this morning, at prayer breakfast: Yes, I was tough. You have to be tough! The world's been taking advantage of us.

I agree with that too. While Trump intentionally tied his hands with replacing Scalia to appeal to conservatives that were skeptical of him on the campaign trail, that doesn't mean he has to do the same thing for any subsequent replacement. If Trump nominates a Trumpier justice with even larger stakes on the line (likely replacing Kennedy, Ginsburg or Breyer), Democrats have a better chance of actually succeeding in shooting that nominee down.

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Image: Protester outlined by fire, in a black handkerchief mask and a Run DMC shirt. Idiot we should be ashamed of, or...I mean...cool guy, right?

You can see the core belief system of progressive America right here:

https://youtu.be/Zs7IYyA2UCE

Then I suppose these are the core beliefs of conservatives:

Green Habit wrote:I agree with that too. While Trump intentionally tied his hands with replacing Scalia to appeal to conservatives that were skeptical of him on the campaign trail, that doesn't mean he has to do the same thing for any subsequent replacement. If Trump nominates a Trumpier justice with even larger stakes on the line (likely replacing Kennedy, Ginsburg or Breyer), Democrats have a better chance of actually succeeding in shooting that nominee down.

I think it's either going to be the nuclear option now, or the nuclear option with a future appointment, so I don't see what the difference is for the Democrats. I would imagine their thinking now is that this should be as painful as possible and as weakening for the Trump administration as can be as a response to what happened with Garland. If Republicans don't put into place the 51-seat passage for Gorsuch, they undoubtedly will for the next appointment.

Peeps wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:If he somehow wins re-election it will probably be a lot more than 8. i can't imagine he would ever willingly step down.

I always thought presidential term limits were pretty weird anyway.

whats weird is you have term limits on the president, but the SCOTUS are for life (once appointed until they die) and yet congress and the senate have no term limits

Blame Franklin D. Roosevelt.

While researching this, I found this out:

As of 2017, the only former presidents who remain eligible to seek another term are Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush, who each served a single term.

bune wrote:Blame Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Nah, blame Republicans who were butthurt over losing to FDR four times in a row.

Green Habit wrote:

bune wrote:Blame Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Nah, blame Republicans who were butthurt over losing to FDR four times in a row.

That's what I meant: he was too good.

And now he's talking about the Johnson Amendment? Christ.

bune wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

bune wrote:Blame Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Nah, blame Republicans who were butthurt over losing to FDR four times in a row.

That's what I meant: he was too good.

And now he's talking about the Johnson Amendment? Christ.

Does he not realize it was Republicans that passed it and a Republican president that signed it into law?

wease wrote:

bune wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

bune wrote:Blame Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Nah, blame Republicans who were butthurt over losing to FDR four times in a row.

That's what I meant: he was too good.

And now he's talking about the Johnson Amendment? Christ.

Does he not realize it was Republicans that passed it and a Republican president that signed it into law?

Republicans haven't liked the amendment since at least the Reagan years. I wonder if they realize it will let all those human rights and public protection nonprofits contribute as well.

The Russian sanctions are gone*

*"eased"

He's referring to: